DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/20/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) to the intermediate final product relationship. Note the following MPEP 806.05(j) Related Products; Related Processes Two-way distinctness and reasons for insisting on restriction are necessary in separate classification, status in the art, or field of search. See MPEP § 808.02. See MPEP § 806.05(c) for an explanation of the requirements to establish two-way distinctness as it applies to inventions in a combination/subcombination relationship. See MPEP § 802.01. In this case, the mobility and radiative cooling are not in the same class. An example, an intermediate product and a final product can be shown to be distinct inventions if the intermediate and final products are mutually exclusive inventions (not overlapping in scope) that are not obvious variants, and the intermediate product as claimed is useful to make something other than the final product as claimed. Typically, the intermediate loses its identity in the final product. See also MPEP § 806.05(d) for restricting between subcombinations disclosed as usable together. See MPEP § 809 - § 809.03 if a generic claim or claim linking multiple products or multiple processes is present.
Form paragraph 8.14.01 may be used to restrict between related products or related processes; form paragraph 8.14 may be used in intermediate-final product restriction requirements; form paragraph 8.16 may be used to restrict between subcombinations.
Applicant is also reminded of pursuing the possible filing of a Divisional. Further, the Examiner has specifically pointed to all the reasons why it would be burdensome because the subject matter is divergent and/or as consistent with the MPEP. Also the record doesn't show them to be obvious variants. Acknowledgement is made of Group I, claims 1-17.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0151617 (Lauw et al).
Re claims 1-6, Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate, (abstract) comprising NIR-reflective translucent polymer layer, first adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer, structural polymer layer, second adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer, and weather resistant layer [42-49]. The NIR-reflective translucent polymer layer comprises metal such as aluminum [19]. The first adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer is made from thermoplastic polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate [29, 31]. The structural polymer layer is made from thermoplastic polyolefin such as polypropylene [50]. The second adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer is made from thermoplastic PMMA [29]. Although there is no disclosure that the first adhesive layer is a long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer or that the structural polymer layer is a visible light reflecting layer, given that each of the layers is made from same materials as presently claimed, they would necessarily function as long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer and visible light reflecting layer.
In light of the overlap between the claimed colored laminate and that disclosed by Lauw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a colored laminate that is both disclosed by Lauw and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Although there is no disclosure that the colored laminate of Lauw is for radiative cooling, the recitation in the claims that the colored laminate is “for radiative cooling” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Lauw discloses colored laminate as presently claimed, it is clear that the colored laminate of Lauw would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. radiative cooling, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Re claim 7, Lauw discloses NIR-reflective translucent polymer layer has a thickness less than 300 microns [20] and the first adhesive layer (i.e. long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer) has thickness of 50-600 microns [27].
Re claim 8, Lauw discloses the structural layer (i.e. visible light reflecting layer) has a thickness of, for example, 190 microns [132] and the second adhesive layer (i.e. colored layer) has thickness of 50-600 microns [27].
Re claim 9, given that Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate as presently claimed, such laminate would inherently have emissivity as presently claimed.
Re claim 10, given that Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate as presently claimed, including colored layer as claimed that includes chromatic color [Table 1], such colored layer would inherently have transmittance as claimed.
Re claims 11 and 13-15, Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate, (abstract) comprising NIR-reflective translucent polymer layer, first adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer, structural polymer layer, second adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer, and weather resistant layer [42-49]. The NIR-reflective translucent polymer layer comprises metal such as aluminum [19]. The first adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer is made from thermoplastic polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate [29, 31]. The structural polymer layer is made from thermoplastic polyolefin such as polypropylene [50]. The second adhesive layer that is NIR-reflective colored polymer layer is made from thermoplastic PMMA [29]. Although there is no disclosure that the first adhesive layer is a long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer or that the structural polymer layer is a visible light reflecting layer, given that each of the layers is made from same materials as presently claimed, they would necessarily function as long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer and visible light reflecting layer. Given that the first adhesive layer (i.e. long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer), structural layer (i.e. visible light reflecting layer), and second adhesive layer (i.e. colored layer) are each made from different materials, they would inherently have different optical properties.
While there is no disclosure that the multi-layer material sheet is a radiative cooling material as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. radiative cooling material, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate, and further that the prior art structure which is a colored laminate identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Re claim 12, given that Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate as presently claimed, the colored laminate would necessarily be applicable to an exterior material or a building.
Re claim 16, Lauw discloses NIR-reflective translucent polymer layer has a thickness less than 300 microns [20], the first adhesive layer (i.e. long-wavelength infrared-ray radiating layer) has thickness of 50-600 microns [27], the structural layer (i.e. visible light reflecting layer) has a thickness of, for example, 190 microns [132] and the second adhesive layer (i.e. colored layer) has thickness of 50-600 microns [27].Given that Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate as presently claimed, including colored layer as claimed that includes chromatic color [Table 1], such colored would inherently have transmittance as claimed.
Re claim 17, given that Lauw discloses multi-layer material sheet, i.e. colored laminate as presently claimed, such laminate would inherently have emissivity as presently claimed.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights